User Name:


FAQ Donate Join

General Discussion
The rational proof that God exists

Here is how I'm going to prove in a rational way that God exists:

1) Is the lack of proof that something exist the proof that it doesn't exist? For example, 1000 years ago people couldn't prove that radio waves exist. Did it mean that at that time, that radio waves didn't exist?

2) If the lack of proof that something exist *isn't* the proof that it doesn't exist, then how could you possibly prove or deny *anything* (including God himself)?

3) You must accept the existence of *anything*, because you exist yourself (cogito ergo sum). In other words, you are yourself the proof that God does exist whether you like the fact or not. Sorry.

You asked: "Is the lack of proof that something exist the proof that it doesn't exist?" If there is no evidence where there *should* be evidence, then it counts against the claim. Prayer, for example, doesn't work with any measurable value better than chance. If the Christian god did exist, then prayer would be more effective.

On your second question, please understand that atheism is the lack of belief in god claims. It's the conservative position, given the lack of evidence. Your post, by the way, doesn't convince me. I have yet to see any convincing evidence of the existence of god.

Your third point doesn't make sense. It's like saying apples exist, therefore oranges exist. This argument doesn't follow.

So let's tally: Your first point was a valid question which I answered. The second was based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of "atheist". The third was illogical. I don't see any proof of the existence of god here--just hand waving.

Rationalist said, "Here is how I'm going to prove in a rational way that God exists: 1) Is the lack of proof that something exist the proof that it doesn't exist? For example, 1000 years ago people couldn't prove that radio waves exist. Did it mean that at that time, that radio waves didn't exist?

No, but radio waves didn't create the universe and they are not an omniscient Supernatural Being that performs miracles. There might be a lot of things that exists that we have not yet discovered, but God is not one of them. God could not have existed outside of time and space because there is nothing outside of time/space for God to exist in, and time had a beginning and there was no time before time. If God has always been there and is everywhere who created Him or the supernatural realm that He existed in before the beginning of time and space? How is God everywhere but cannot be detected by any method? This concept defies logic and would lead most rationalists to conclude that the story about an omnipresent, omnipotent Supernatural Being (God) has some pretty big holes in it. If God is omniscient (all knowing) then God knows everything past, present and future. If God knows what is going to happen in the future why didn't he warn people of things like the holocaust, the atomic bomb or hurricanes. Why care if an omniscient God exists if He doesn't use it to help us out occasionally. If God knows the future then everything is inevitable and that negates free will, which is another contradiction. There is more than one contradiction, but all we need is one to say there is no omniscient God.

Rationalist said, "2) If the lack of proof that something exist *isn't* the proof that it doesn't exist, then how could you possibly prove or deny *anything* (including God himself)?"

Is it possible to examine empirically the absence of something? How do you perceive absences? Negative truths are more difficult to formulate but negative truths are more fundamental than positive truths. From a logical point of view, contractions of positive truths are negative truths. Positive "truths" can be the denial of negative truths because it is difficult to deal with negative information. The claim that something exists requires proof; like an observation, or the existence of an observer, or the use of a model, formula or an exact method to reach a conclusion about the plausibility of the existence of something that we cannot observe. The purpose of these methods is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors, which determines if there is an experiment that could be done to prove the existence of something. What is the formula or equation for the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent supernatural God and what is it based on, and how does anyone construct a model? How do you test or falsify your answer? Why just believe it? Why is deciding there has to be something (with no evidence) a better decision than there is nothing? Without evidence no experiment could support the hypothesis 'there is something' because the lack of any observation (of the supernatural) obviously implies there is nothing that is supernatural.

This doesn't include all the contradictions concerning all the religions and all the Gods, but even without them my answer is that there is no God/Gods.

To prove something is false you find the inconsistencies or contradictions. Anything that involves contradictions cannot be logical or true. If something is self-contradictory it is false. Anything that violates the fundamental law of noncontradiction (if the question itself is contradictory) it can not have a positive answer. Contradictory "positive" facts make it possible to prove a negative. Give a number that is higher than the highest number (a positive claim that implies the existence of a higher number. There cannot be a number higher than the highest number (a positive fact)? The question posed cannot be answered because it is based on a false positive reality that is contradictory, and that makes it a negative fact. The theoretical proposition of a number higher than the highest number is contradictory; therefore the answer is negative (it doesn't exist). Just like the positive reality that there is nothing supernatural that exist.

Rationalist said, "3) You must accept the existence of *anything*, because you exist yourself (cogito ergo sum). In other words, you are yourself the proof that God does exist whether you like the fact or not."

We exist because of evolution, and we are not supernatural, so a supernatural being didn't create us in His image. There is no theory that requires a Supernatural Being (creation) for us to exist. Positive truths are easier to understand than negative truths. Contradictions result in negative answers because they are not logical. That is why it is necessary to have "faith" to believe in God.

Scientists and scholars do not try to prove anything about an illogical claim, which is why they do not try to prove anything about the supernatural or God. Those who believe in God should present a God hypothesis that is logical to science, that is what Darwin did with the theory of evolution, and then let the experts examine the evidence. What you have written is not logical, and you do not provide any proof of anything that you claim is true.

There is no evidence of anything "supernatural" let alone a "supernatural being's" existence. There is no evidence of (design) or that anything was created, but there is plenty of evidence of evolution. Scientists first evaluate the plausibility of an explanation for some phenomena before they apply it to a theory. The problem with the omnipotent Supernatural Being that created everything is that it does not explain anything. The problem is deeper than just not having any evidence. There is no supernatural explanation for anything that we know scientifically. That is another reason the theory of a supernatural God is not plausible. There is no need for a supernatural explanation of any phenomenon.

Rationalist said, "Sorry."

Yes, you are!

Rationalist said, "If the lack of proof that something exist *isn't* the proof that it doesn't exist, then how could you possibly prove or deny *anything* (including God himself)?"

This is precisely why I have come to an important conclusion about God-or, more specifically, Spencer's Magic Meatball. I was on my lunch break and got a MickeyD's Happy Meal (Yes, a Happy Meal, with a toy and everything). I was mulling over some big questions that were bothering me-what to do with my life sort of things-and along came the pink meatball toy in my Happy Meal. The instructions say to ask it questions and it will give you answers. So I tried it, and damned if that meatball didn't give some good advice. I knew it worked when I asked it the first question, "Am I beautiful," and it said, "the answer is yes." If all the advice the meatball gave me turns out to be good advice, then the meatball is god, plain and simple. Deal with it.


Your "talking meatball" story was great; it was better than one might think. It reminded me of a Twilight Zone episode "Nick of Time." It was scary enough to stop you from asking that toy meatball any more questions.

It's about a couple that is moving to (some other place) to start a new life, and on the way their car breaks down in a small town. The opening scene portrays the couple as having some silly superstitious leanings. The couple goes to a dinner to eat while the car is being repaired and they become obsessed with a napkin holder that is a penny fortune-telling machine. Even though the machine can only answer questions that have a yes or no answer the man thinks the vague answers the machine is giving him are specific answers to his questions. I think they even try to trick the machine but they believe they can't. Something the machine answers makes them think that something is going to happen to them if they leave, but I can't remember what they had asked. I know that they think that they can't leave until the machine tells them it's safe to go.

I watched this one night when I was staying in a hotel and I thought then that this story was a good example of what superstition and religion is about. You think you are getting answers even when you are not, you become fearful of just walking off and leaving it, which is how superstitious beliefs enslave you.


I'm adding this to your first point about radio waves since I didn't give the particulars in my first answer, but you didn't have any rebuttal to your other points that were answered in detail. All of your points will now be definitely answered, and if you have no rebuttal your argument is lost.

A rationale based on logical conclusions about electromagnetic waves (that people who understood the hypothesis did believe) led to the discovery of radio waves. There are many things like radio waves that were not known about until scientists discovered them; but your opinion that since we didn't know something at one point in time would lead to the conclusion that we should now believe illogical claims without evidence is preposterous. It is very obvious that the Bible demonstrates no knowledge of radio waves. Should we therefore still not believe in them since radio waves are not Biblical. If I wanted to give a message to the whole world I certainly would have used that technology if I knew it existed, but the people who wrote the Bible didn't know radio waves existed.

James Clerk Maxwell, a Scottish physicist, demonstrated that electric and magnetic forces are two complementary aspects of electromagnetism. He showed that electric and magnetic fields travel through empty space, in the form of waves, at a constant velocity. He proposed (from experiments on light and color) that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Scientific investigations that answer one question often raise a new question that's how science works.

He did not just decide that something existed without any evidence; his hypothesis was based on observations. His hypothesis was investigated by a series of predictions and experimental investigations. The prediction of Maxwell theory of electromagnetism was the existence of electromagnetic waves moving at the speed of light, and the conclusion that light itself was just such a wave. Scientists can test ideas that are based on logical evidence, and that is what challenged experimentalist to generate and detect electromagnetic radiation using some form of electrical apparatus. This is nothing like just deciding something is there out of thin air. A scientific experiment is based on an accumulation of facts that are testable. If the results contradict the hypothesis then it is either revised or discarded. If the results support the hypothesis then it becomes stronger and more tests are done. This is a process known as the scientific method; that method requires thoughtful, plausible and logical reasoning that gives credence to the hypothesis that is presented to be tested. Heinrich Hertz made that successful attempt in 1886. This first radio waves transmitter is basically, what we call today, a LC oscillator. In more advanced experiments, Hertz measured the velocity of electromagnetic radiation and found it to be the same as the light's velocity. He also showed that the nature of radio waves' reflection and refraction was the same as those of light, and established beyond any doubt that light is a form of electromagnetic radiation obeying the Maxwell equations.

Maxwell's hypothesis of electromagnetic radiation was an "educated guess" that was discovered and proven through the scientific method and was a natural occurrence; it is not something that is supernatural. There is no way science can prove anything exists that is mystical, and nobody has ever proven any claim (by controlled tests) about the supernatural.

Most people will dispute unsubstantiated claims, with the exception of those people who are so indoctrinated that they can't think for themselves, there is no claim that can't be challenged. If you can't defend your claim of proof of God's existence (and all 3 of your points were answered) then they didn't stand up to examination. Posting something as "proof" of your claims (that you can't or don't defend) is pointless.

I wanted to add this information to the Descartes quote "(cogito ergo sum)."

The actual quote was (Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum) "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am". Descartes was born in 1596, and I don't think he knew or thought a thing about evolution, because Aristotle's non-evolutionary view of the universe was all that science had until Charles Darwin changed all of that. Charles Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species' was published on 24 November 1859. Scientists realized that Aristotelian philosophy was ineffective at explaining anything, and the evolutionary approach to understanding the universe has successively displaced the stationary Aristotelian view.

Rene Descartes was a famous French mathematician, scientist and philosopher, but he was no skeptic. In 1633 he was about to publish "The World", but after hearing of the Church's condemnation of Galileo (1564-1642) in the same year, Descartes decided against publishing it. In 'The World' Descartes, like Galileo, accepted the heliocentric Copernican model. In a letter to Mersenne, dated November 1633, Descartes expresses his fear that publishing 'The World' might get him the same fate that happened to Galileo, on account of, you couldn't wipe without church approval in those times. Much of "The World" was lost (some of it survived in the form of essays) which would be published four years later, in 1637. And, some of it was published after his death. When Descartes was philosophizing, Aristotle was still the darling of Church, and the Church did not accept new ideas benevolently. So, I think it is fairly obvious that scientists and philosophers were functioning under the constraints of religious tyranny and the worth of any statement made by anyone at that time could not be judged without taking all of that into consideration. Furthermore, it's obvious that science has always been a "thorn in the side" of the religious hierarchy; just like it still is today.

If terrorizing the followers with hell and threatening scholars into abandoning honesty and intellectual integrity is the only way religion can hang in there then the church really doesn't have much to offer anyone. When the development of scientific theories are oppressed it's evil; it's not good. What the world should be ridded of is a system that is entirely irrational and contrary to informed logical concepts. Yet, these charlatans who couldn't kill off science want their religiously inspired revelations accept on "faith", and then pawned off to the public as something that has a scientific basis in fact.

The Scottish skeptic, David Hume is everywhere regarded as the greatest philosopher of the English language. He discredited the Argument from Design 250 years ago with his essay on miracles, but the most complete analysis is in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, published shortly after his death in 1776.

1. Humpalumpa & Woozles can't be disproved, to the great worry of Winnie the Pooh, along with possibly an infinite number of other imagined things. They were right to not believe in radio waves when there was no evidence for that belief. Lucky for us all, what is & isn't does not hinge upon our beliefs.

2. Nothing=Nothing. 0 = 0. One can no more prove the absence of leprechauns & unicorns in this universe today than they could have proven radio waves 2,000 years ago. However, if you explained leprechauns & radio waves to one that has heard of neither, which do you think would be more well received? Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Have you ever heard of the Tea-Cup that orbits one of our planets?

3. We must accept the existence of ANYTHING!?! Are you prepared to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM)? I also poop intelligent feces that combine into one big pile of God, which also demands your worship. If you worship all the gods, then that makes you a whoreshiper. Your argument demands that all things demand equal ground. I demand that people need a license to breed, but I'm not going to hold my breath...

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ACA members! It's time to renew your ACA membership. You can do so online if you log in and then click here or check your e-mail for alternate instructions. Thanks for supporting the ACA.

The after-the-show meetup after the Atheist Experience TV Show has moved to El Arroyo, 1624 W 5th St.